I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.

Alan321 wrote:
I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.

Alan321 wrote:
I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.

binary visions wrote:
...it's the winner over a lens that nobody has tested yet?

Of course, of course. It is just my rhetoric based on my experience. For my last safari few months ago, I used 120-300/2.8 and Nikon 400/2.8 VR . the Sigma performed as well as the best of Nikon 400/2.8 VR.

I have the lens on order from B&H. It has internal focus(IF)
but NO internal zoom(IZ). So unfortunately, it will extend
about 3" at 400mm. Also, it will AF with a Nikon X1.4
teleconverter attached, at F/8.0 on the D800.
Can't wait to have this baby in my hands.

GroovyGeek wrote:
And you would be exactly where the 800-400 is price-wise, except that you would have a 5.6 lens everywhere and probably not so great optics, at least if Nikon's past TC2.0's are a guide. Not sure of the latest one though.

I doubt that Nikon would price it as they did if the IQ was merely equivalent to a 70-200 + TC

Yes but you would also have a 2.8 until 200mm. Gain some lose some I guess!